Innovation – Page 13 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Unknown Stats

Just as an intermission; this. QQ, QZone ..? Good to (learn to) know (them), if only to wake us up to the classic-Western-world bias some may have…

That’s all for now. Your conclusions are valid, almost as valid as mine, in the limit. This:

[Oh how glorious, brilliant, radiant (… you know …); and Central
If you wondered why the vertical warp: dunno, probably just WordPress’ error …]

Golden Oldie Pic Of The Day

Yup it’s time for one of those again.
Oh, how much is it like life …

A sobering thought

Actually, not one but a great many sobering thoughts, in this great piece: What They Don’t Teach You in “Thinking Like the Enemy” Class. In a high-quality series.

To which one might add … not too much. Maybe the 100%-is-infeasible line, and Schneier’s Return of the Security (is..?) Theatre trope. Oh, and the one that has still taken far too little root; the deperimetrisation-means-you-need-to-focus-on-information-not-the-fortress aspect that has been around for a decade already but still has hardly been implemented properly.

Or, we redesign the world. Somehow, we need to get into the mindsets of the global populace – that so far hasn’t been standardised to any degree; happily! for cultural diversity hence overall societal flexibility, development and progress … – to accept that after human development was pushed by physical wars for all of its existence so far, we have arrived at a new round of warfare innovation. After the man-to-man (sic) manual combat, and the ethically despicable practice of not even seeing the Other in the eye individually that gunpowder brought on – glossing over the trebuchet-and-others long-distance hurtling and archers’ reach –, we are now engaging not only in drone-led warfare (distance being even greater), but also in this: humans not being the soldiers anymore; that part being taken over by the robot. By which I don’t mean humanoid robots – why even bother – nor masses of stand-alone AI. But rather, unembodied A(S)I that operates on any platforms together, creating resilience not by numbers of clones but by moving swiftly over servers by having been virtualised at various levels of conceptuality, as they are compounded-mem complexes battling each other evolutionarily. And still aiming at humans.

…? Well, what’s the purpose, otherwise ..!?

Which is far off from where this post started. And foregoing the intermediary step I wanted to write up; where ideas cleverly capture (numb, dumb?) people and ‘ideologies’ fight each other for global dominance. With all sorts of ‘neat’ (quod non) tricks. But [w|h]ell… and this:
DSCN8626cut
[All humans removed from picture. Naturally]

You, me, and ASI; the difference

Before we forget: Why some don’t see how ASI would surpass AGI and humankind, is that humankind has not learned to work together in all the time humans have existed in groups beyond the first few Dunbar numbers (2, 8, 20, 50). Which means we humans spend the most delicate thought and most thinking energy on the operations and tactics of working together, before the ‘external’ task can be solved if at all. Where ASI would have no trouble having all human culture combined into one processing faculty already, hence think-acting at a level of all humankind in concert, or beyond. We have external response flexibility, ASI has that covered internally with an n-dimensional external surface, n possibly > 4.

Deep-think that one over. And:

[Indeed, one section. Goes for all of your brain’s work, too]

Still valid; MIS is a Mirage

Somehow, some neurons fired that sublimed into a thought about John Dearden’s MIS is a Mirage, of 1972 … Turns out I’m not the only one who thinks it’s still very much valid today. As e.g., here. Oh, the insights that run in deep undercurrents throughout today’s management- and other fads…!

But, once ASI comes along … Then at last, MIS can do without the, then relative but still, stupidity of mankind. Or ..?

[No pic today. Post too short. First, you study the article at length!]

Scaling ‘security’

Availability: 99.9% (per year).
‘Security’ (the C, the I) … nothing. Or, the infeasible 100.0% XOR nothing.

We may have a major issue here…

Well, we do have OSSTMM on one hand, and the seriously innovative, very important Secrecy stuff on the other.
But can we answer the question “How secure are we“..? Indeed, OSSTMM gives us a number – for the operational and technical elements. How ’bout integrating the tactical, strategic, and non-tech stuff like hooman behaviour ..? And still make it somewhat understandable to the clueless (Csomethings and other involved in the utterly useless nonsensical area designated by the pejorative joke label ‘governance’; all with the exceptions acknowldged of course); other than the above % per year estimates that are interpreted so badly..!
Oh and things like failure rates from e.g., FMAE, as presented like ‘dam can stand a one-in-a-thousand-year flood’ also don’t work – dam can break today, and tomorrow, and the statistic may very well still be valid!

Maybe it’s key to first find how to whack the notion of “1-in-1000yrs means I don’t have to worry for another 999 years” fallacy. Psychology it is but so security should be..! As many of Bruce Schneier-et-al’s posts prove (?), FUD and other angle fail so miserably.

The time (decades) we’ll need to turn around the psychos, allow us some leeway to develop suitable Scale(s?) of Security. But let’s not wait for the end of those decades before embarking on the exploratory first steps of that. You suggestions, please, today.

[Edited ahead of posting, to add: This here piece on the (declining) half-life of secrets; definitely something to include in the above ‘metrics’. ..?]

For the eye candy:
DSCN4499
[Zurenborg again, slightly edited – who’ll do the colour corrections for me?]

The Future Plays At All Boards

There seems to be quite an interest in ‘the’ future, lately. As in, the last couple of tens of millennia but also the last couple of months. Recency Effect, maybe ..?

The thing is; discussions how the near and far future will/might be, are handicapped by industry and specialisation myopia.

IT-angehauchten discuss ANI, AGI and ASI, with neural networks resurfacing, finally, in discussions over when (soon) we’ll have the Singularity. Yes you’ve read my great many posts about that already or go in shame and still do it (impression tracker is engaged).
A branch of that, discusses very near future labour markets – mostly, almost exclusively, those in the furthest developed economies only.
Biologists and eco-nuts (are they?) are on the Global Warming / Food- and Fresh Water- Starvation / Anti-GMO paths in their discussions.
And there’s of course daily glocal wars going on, military/physical and refugee atrocities everywhere, and economic warfare as well. Of the latter which ‘cyber’ in all its forms (remember, #ditchcyber) is part.
Simple-economically, there still is the enormous divide between haves and have-nots, now being exposed (nevertheless still growing) within countries’ local economies as well due to jobless growth and the Pikettyish 1%’ers.
And, I probably forget some category. [Edited half a day after post release, to add: Yup, this here combi-one.]

But, … all play out on/in the same world, the one you and I inhabit [well maybe not you, alien (as physical being or just meme/information floating around over whatever physical media) listening in from the Andromeda nebula]. So, we’ll have to deal with all problems, operational, tactical and strategical, together both in people and in solutions. And as the world spins faster than ever, requiring ever more clever and ever more-dimensional solutions. Until all choke, mind-wise. Hasta La Vista, baby.

Oh well. I’m not (even) negative …
DSCN2520
[Anywhere, everywhere.]

Schmobol

With the current uptick in interest in the ageing population … of the handful still capable of hardcore manual programming of COBOL, as e.g., here, I wondered:

Is the code base still so enormously biased to COBOL(-based! software)?
Why haven’t COBOL-to-e.g., C, or others converters, not caught on widely so the ‘problem’ doesn’t exist anymore ..?

Especially the latter; especially since we still have tons, too many (?), programmers available to tackle C- and more modern-language scrutiny and optimisation jobs. Jobs; high-pay jobs. And automatic testers to compare absolute 1-to-1 identity of the functionality or tractable lists of boundary conditions (possibly differing).
But with so many more (modern) code/functionality maintenance tools and capabilities available. And with integration/migration to (even) newer integrated platforms available.
And, when things get tough, AI that should be easily trainable to get to the hard, core bugs (higher abstraction sense) before/after the translation(s).

So, what’s the deal? The only deal there is, is (and was, having lost a long time) the lack of forward-looking maintenance to have already started early on modernisation. Yes, of course, there’s Not On My Watch and Après Nous Le Déluge. But real leaders would cut through that; that’s what distinguishes them from mere shopkeeper ‘managers’.

All right. Leaving you with:

[Impossible to guess I guess. Where?]

The need for a new security framework

… I feel the need for it. A new security framework.

Because what we have, is based on outdated models. Of security. Of organisations. Of how the world turns.
Bureaucracy doesn’t cut it no more. The very idea of hierarchically stacked framework sets (COSO/CObIT/ISO27k1:2013/…) likewise, is stale.
And the bottom-up frameworks en vogue, e.g., OSSTMM (if you don’t know what that is all (sic) about, go in shame and find out!) and core work like Vicente Aceituno Canal’s, haven’t found traction enough yet, nor are they integrated soundly enough (yet!!) into further bottom-up overarching approaches. Ditching the word ‘framework’ as that is tainted.

But what then? At least, OSSTMM. And physical security. And SMAC. And IoT. And Privacy (European style, full 100.0%, mandatory). And business-organising disruption, exploded labour markets, geopolitics, et al.

OK. Who of you has pointers to such an Utopia ..? [Dystopian angles intended]

Unrelated:
DSCN6146
[Your guess. Not Nancy. But is it Reims ..?]

Today’s-Tech-Yesterday-Craving

As a question: What is the melancholic (sic) feeling one gets when realising how great it would have been to have had (some of) today’s technology / hype little tools, already yesterday or rather, a couple of decades back ..?

As logically flawed as the feeling is (you’d change the world of yesterday in a way that would make today’s world impossible to exist exactly like it turned out today… No-impact visits to the past even, are impossible since you’d return with the info of having been there), it still creeps up every now and then. Oddly, it concerns specific technology items, not Technology as a philosophical construct altogether. Is that where the error of thought creeps in; can’t have your tool and not eat the whole thing ..?

Please add your musings… And

[Quiz: Prato or Pistoia ..?]